Consulting by RPM || Free Advice Blog

Quite a Compliment

I love the story of Jesus’ encounter with John the Baptist (Mt 3: 13-17):

13Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

I do not know enough about Jewish law and tradition to talk about the overall significance of this event. However, I want to comment on two other aspects of it:

First, can you imagine the credibility Jesus thus attained, in the eyes of all those who were present? I mean, John the Baptist himself was pretty hardcore. He lived out in the wilderness, and had choice words for the Jewish leaders who visited him. And yet he told everybody that the Man now standing before them was so much his superior, that John wasn’t even fit to unstrap His sandals.

Oh, and then there’s the little matter of a dove descending from heaven and a voice from above saying Jesus is God’s Son in whom He is well pleased. Yikes. (BTW we are to assume that everybody else saw and heard that, right? From the translation above it’s not 100% clear.)

My second observation: Can you imagine how much confidence and joy this must have infused into Jesus, as He prepared to embark on His ministry? The God of the Old Testament did not screw around, and He had some very high standards. So can you imagine an incredibly devout Jew hearing a public declaration that He had pleased the Lord of the Israelites? Wow.

The following is not strictly Biblical, but my own attempt to fill in the gaps: I think there was a maturation process, as the human body of Jesus of Nazareth adapted to His realization that He was also divine. For example, I think the 12-year-old Jesus really was asking honest questions in the temple. In other words, I don’t think He already knew the answers at that point; He was still learning the Law from the experts. Of course, by the time the boy had grown into an adult, He could walk circles around the scribes.

So by the same token, I think it was necessary for Jesus to hear His Father say that after His baptism, in order to bolster Him as He set out to save the world.

My New Favorite Hedge Fund Manager

I saw some other videos with unpromising titles (like “Hendry says print money to fix slump”) but I don’t want to ruin it. Anyway this is pretty cool, I just wish I knew the context. (HT2 Ash Navabi)

Matt Simmons Proposes First Strike…

…on the oil leak. (HT2 von Pepe)

I don’t know enough about nuclear weapons to say whether his idea makes sense.

Hugh Hendry vs. Jeffrey Sachs

This is beautiful. (HT2 Jeff Tucker.) This video is worth watching, at least through the first 5:30 minutes or so. (You need to see Hendry respond to Sachs’ claim that the Greek issue has only been on the table for 10 weeks.) Other observations:

(1) Look at how much more civil this is, compared to American counterparts.

(2) Listen to how much cooler their accents are.

(3) Are they saying that the banks that are in need of a bailout are paying dividends?! Wow you have to hand it to those bankers, that’s impressive.

My Two Cents on Rand Paul

As with the Arizona thing, I really was going to sit this one out. But the commentary has just been too goofy. Here goes:

==>There is a difference between something being immoral and being illegal. Just because someone thinks a certain behavior should be legal, doesn’t mean he thinks it’s “not a big deal.” For example, I don’t think the government should prohibit Marxists from renting out hotel ballrooms to discuss the flaws with capitalism. I certainly don’t approve of their actions though. I’m not a Marxist sympathizer or fellow traveler. Duh.

As obvious as this is, you find people who don’t make that elementary distinction. And it’s not merely in blog comments, but in actual articles where I think the author got paid. For example:

What makes Rand Paul’s position (as he originally expressed it on the Maddow show) noteworthy is that it’s a pure, unadulterated expression of Lockean anti-statism with little admixture of Hobbesian sentiments at all. Paul, like many libertarians and Tea Party activists, is so obsessed with the possibility that the state might commit an injustice that he’s indifferent to the reality of actually existing injustice at the hands of private citizens. As far as these radical Lockeans are concerned, the former is tyranny, pure and simple, while the latter is just life: yeah, it’s sometimes unfair, but freedom requires that we (or rather, in this case, blacks living under Jim Crow in the South) get over it.

Look, if people want to argue that some libertarians (and I don’t think Rand Paul even calls himself a libertarian, incidentally) seem to conveniently focus on one set of State abuses that crimp hetero white male lifestyles, while they don’t get too worked up about other State abuses that only affect other people, OK fair enough.

But that type of criticism is about 15% of what’s being thrown at the supporters of Rand Paul on this issue. The other 85% is just silly, that doesn’t even understand the argument.

Glenn Greenwald Taking Flak for Defending Ron Paul

Poor Glenn Greenwald. After noting that people dismiss Ron Paul as “crazy,” GG lists a bunch of Paul’s signature stances, all of which are self-evidently plausible. He concludes:

If one wants to argue that Ron Paul and others like him hold specific views that are crazy, that’s certainly reasonable. But those who make that claim virtually always hold views at least as crazy, and devote themselves to one of the two political parties that has, over and over, embraced insane, destructive and warped policies of their own. The reason the U.S. is in the shape it’s in isn’t because Ron Paul and the rest of the so-called “crazies” have been in charge; they haven’t been, at all. The policies that have prevailed are the ones which the two parties have endorsed. So where does the real craziness lie?

Fair enough, right? And certainly Glenn Greenwald’s readers, of all people, should get the basic point he’s making.

Alas, ’twas not to be. GG felt the need to clarify in an update:

UPDATE: I’ll try this one more time: for those wanting to write about all the bad things Ron Paul believes, before going into the comment section, please read and then re-read these three sentences:

There’s no question that Ron Paul holds some views that are wrong, irrational and even odious. But that’s true for just about every single politician in both major political parties . . . My point isn’t that Ron Paul is not crazy; it’s that those who self-righteously apply that label to him and to others invariably embrace positions and support politicians at least as “crazy.”

This is a comparative assessment between (a) those routinely dismissed as Crazy and (b) the two party establishments and their Mainstream Loyalists who do the dismissing. Assessing (a) is completely nonresponsive and irrelevant without comparing it to (b).

Now out of curiosity I’m going to click to see what the “odious” views are that GG alludes to. I’m guessing newsletter stuff?

Sneaky Price Inflation Suppression

A while ago I got this email from Connie Cline, who makes a point about hidden CPI inflation that Silas Barta has been promoting:

I had a rather mundane experience the other day, but it got me wondering … I was at my favorite big box store picking up landscape staples (you know, those little u-shaped wires for securing weed mat) and picked up the usual package. I did a double take because it didn’t feel right when I picked it up. The package was the same as always and so was the price, so I paid and brought it home. When I opened the package I compared a staple to one I had bought a few months ago and sure enough the wire was maybe half or a third as thick as the old wire. Then I remembered that at one point I noticed that my toilet paper rolls — same brand I’ve always bought at the same warehouse store — suddenly were narrower. In neither case was there a snappy little yellow star say “Look! Now lighter weight! Better for the environment!” or anything. Same package, less stuff. So I was wondering, is this sort of thing ever accounted for when people are calculating whether prices are rising?

On That Arizona Law…

OK I have tried not to weigh in on this, because what could I add that has not been said? I just have two points:

#1. I am NOT saying if someone supports the Arizona law, it’s because the person is a closet racist. I live in Nashville, and I have no idea what the people living on the border are experiencing. I think the Arizona law is not the right solution to the problems down there, but I am not judging the character or motives of the people supporting this law.

Having said that, what DOES strike me as absolutely ridiculous is the way radio talk show guys (in particular Glenn Beck and Michael Savage) are defending the law. Their primary technique is to ask critics who call up, “Have you actually read the Arizona law?” and they play soundbites from major politicians who admit they haven’t read it. Then they will go through and read the parts of the law that rule out racial profiling etc.

Give me a break. Did cynics of ObamaCare have to read the whole thing to know it was rotten? If there was a provision in there saying, “Government funds shall not be used to fund abortions,” was that the end of the matter? What if there was a provision saying, “No one shall lose his current health care as a consequence of this section”? Give me a break.

#2. BTW “Kane” has a sweet LRC article on this topic:

While our system of property rights is already imperfect, the current immigration policy leads to even greater infringements on these rights. For example, if one owns property on or near the border, the government may claim the authority to build a fence or a wall on one’s property, and government agents may come and go as they please without the property owner’s permission.

These problems remain even if we move away from the border. For example, if the government suspects that I am employing undocumented workers, it claims the authority to raid my business – to enter my property without my permission – with armed agents.

If one truly owns one’s property, how is it that the government can control who is allowed on this property in opposition to the wishes of the property owner? In other words, why should my friend from Mexico beg for permission to enter the country in order to have dinner with me? Shouldn’t free people be able to associate or not associate with whomever they wish so long as those interactions are voluntary, consensual, and do not harm a third party?
…
In the contemporary world of immigration politics, property rights and the freedom of association are trumped by the omnipotent State. Is the State some sort of god before whom we must plead to recognize us as “official” persons? After all, that is the crux of the immigration question – must the individuals coming to America have the sanction of the State? As the State continues to lose legitimacy in the eyes of so many in the liberty movement, one wonders why many of these same folks still demand that individuals who peacefully come to this country seek the State’s approval above all else. After all, it is the State that determines who is “legal” and “illegal.”

As the United States continues its war on immigration, the government is building the infrastructure for a police state – internal checkpoints, national ID cards, work permits. When we wake up in that police state, will the anti-immigration crowd cry: “But I didn’t mean this!”